Chris Selley: Just when you thought the big human-rights battles were over …

You might think the summer of 2014 has been a little light on portentous domestic news. But while we’ve been lolling around porpoise-like in lakes and swimming pools, serious questions of human rights have arisen right here under our sleepy noses. When Parliament reconvenes in the autumn, we should all prepare for impassioned debate on three key rights issues.

Do you have a right to be very religious?Well, that depends whether you want to participate, unmolested, in public life. “The Harper government’s appointment of a high-profile Roman Catholic as Canada’s envoy to the Holy See is coming under fire,” The Globe and Mail reported, amusingly — could they not find a militant atheist? — last week.

The problem stems from a 2009 pro-life event where the appointee, Dennis Savoie, reportedly made the following comparison: “Why were we so stunned and bewildered by the 3,000 deaths on 9/11 when we’re so silent about the 3,000-plus deaths that occur each day in North America from abortion?”

Not very politically correct, you will agree. Equating abortion to murder is entirely defensible as a moral position, but as a practical matter not many of us really believe it. Last year Angus Reid found just 5% of Canadians thought abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances, including rape and incest. So it’s a bit dicey to compare the searing images of 9/11 to the mostly unacknowledged “deaths” of thousands of anonymous fetuses.

Only that’s not why Mr. Savoie’s comments became controversial. New Democrat foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar was upset because Mr. Savoie’s comments suggested abortion was wrong! “Comparing reproductive rights to 9/11 terror attacks is not the kind of judgment we expect in a Canadian diplomat,” the NDP critic complained. “Appointments like this will further undermine Canada’s reputation on the international stage.”

If Mr. Savoie were being appointed to, say, New Zealand, Mr. Dewar might have a point. But it is difficult to imagine how he could “undermine Canada’s reputation on the international stage” by representing us in a Catholic microstate whose head has called abortion “horrific” and an “abominable crime.”

We know from years of observation that Canadian politics is suspicious of Evangelical social conservatives. Now one wonders if full-on Catholics still have a right to be full-on Catholics. Thankfully, the Charter of Rights says they do — but is the Charter any match for liberal politicians’ high dudgeon?

Do you have a right to play soccer on grass?If you’re very good at soccer, and female, some awfully high-priced lawyers in Canada and the United States think you do. The 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup will be played in six Canadian cities, and entirely on artificial turf — much reviled by soccer players of all sexes for its injurious qualities, though it is tolerated by four club teams in the top-level North American league, and a few decent teams in Europe; and though it is approved for use in the UEFA Champions League; and though FIFA promotes its use.

We likely won’t ever see artificial turf at a men’s World Cup, however. And that makes it discrimination, according to the high-priced lawyers. Never mind the threat of injury. In a letter to the Canadian Soccer Association and FIFA, they argued the turf “contradicts the Canadian government’s claim that ‘Canada is a world leader in the promotion and protection of women’s rights and gender equality.’ ” It constitutes “gender discrimination that violates … numerous provisions of Canadian law, including human rights codes and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” And it subjects the players to “the legally cognizable indignity of playing the game’s most important event on what your organizations admit to be an inferior surface.”

Related

You might think that’s one of the silliest things you’ve ever heard. You might wonder how on earth the Canadian Soccer Association or FIFA would be subject to the Charter, which applies only to governments. Even if they were subject to the Charter, you might observe that since Canada has never hosted a senior-level men’s World Cup, it would be awfully difficult to prove that any form of discrimination had occurred in Canada. And you might note that at the 2007 FIFA Men’s Under-20 World Cup in Canada, the players endured artificial turf despite being men.

Perhaps that was age discrimination! Alas, the time for redress has come and gone. But the high-priced lawyers are on the case, and we shall see what the courts say about the women, if it gets that far. They might even rule in time for the next Women’s World Cup in 2019.

Do you have a right to own a gun?Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, announcing changes to Canada’s firearms laws, said yes: “To possess a firearm is a right, and it’s a right that comes with responsibilities,” he opined at a press conference in Powassan, Ont., on July 23. The Canadian Press and its “Baloney Meter,” however, say no. They say it’s “full baloney.”

In the United States, CP notes, the right to bear arms is “deeply entrenched in the … Constitution.” But the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that no such right can be read into the Canadian Constitution. And, says CP, “governments since Confederation have framed laws that are much more in line with gun possession being a ‘privilege’ that is regulated and licensed, similar to laws that allow Canadians to drive cars.”

You might ask: Was it really worth 1,000 words of reporting and the stinging “full baloney” rebuke to Mr. Blaney to distinguish between the very similar concepts of “a privilege that is regulated and licensed” and “a right that comes with responsibilities”? Can we not say we have a right to our driver’s licences, until we drive into a crowd of people; to our fishing licences, until we pluck too many walleye from our teeming waterways; to ride an airplane, so long as we bring photo identification?

Or are we perhaps witnessing a wholesale re-imagining of rights in Canada? That which is not explicitly set out in the Constitution shall henceforth be considered a privilege. Next time you buy a cup of coffee, embrace your significant other, throw a frisbee or settle in to watch Coronation Street, be sure to give silent thanks to the appropriate legislature for not stopping you.

Natural rights are for Americans, thanks very much. Here in Canada, we derive ours from people named Trudeau. We can only dream of the additional freedoms their clan might bestow upon us.